Wiki 24 talk:Creating actor pages
I don't understand the reason for listing the filmography in reverse order. Like you said this isn't imdb. Character appearances aren't listed in reverse order, so why should actor filmographies? --Proudhug 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) : All I'm saying is that if we're going to list a filmography, we should make all of the filmographies the same. Most of the filmographies that I've seen includes dates and go down from the most recent. It's not reverse order, it's starting with their most recent film roles and ending with their earliest. --Xtreme680 The reason for other sites listing flimographies in this order is because IMDb does it. I assume IMDb does it because they want them to look like a resume or something, or because site visitors want to easily read what's new. This custom of theirs has bothered me ever since I first visited the site back in 1995. Since everything else on Wiki 24 is listed chronologically, I don't see why filmographies would do otherwise. But if anyone has a logical reason to do them the other way, I'll gladly listen. --Proudhug 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) That's cool with me, as long as we do that with ALL of thhe filmographies. I'll go about changing them. So that their first film appearance goes first, and it ends with their most recent film appearance. --Xtreme680 I like this new template. I'll work on changing everything I've done over right away. About the filmographies, I've always seen them listed in reverse chronological order. I think it would look weird to do it any other way. Also, if we're only including a few notable roles, shouldn't it be "selected filmography" or somesuch? --StBacchus 7 April 2006 I think reverse chronological order is best. 1. It's easier to set up 2. We already have a bunch of pages set up that way. Although everything else in Wiki 24 is chronological, all other filmographies I've seen are reverse chronological. This shows the page has been updated recently, and, it's way easier. I don't think it's too confusing for people to figure out. All I care about is that we do it one certain way and stick with it. Wikipedia doesn't have a consensus, and as a result, their actor pages look sloppy. If someone wants to reedit some of the filmographies I've done so they're in chronological order, that's fine, but I just want a set method of doing it. As for selected filmography vs filmography, I've always thought that putting "selected" states the obvious. If they want a full filmography, they can click on the imdb link at the bottom of the screen. Seacrest out. --Xtreme680 This isn't strictly about the actor pages, but I've been doing appearances for the characters in chronological order. I personally think it's fine to have those chronological and the filmographies reverse, but if anyone's head is going to explode, I want to know about it before I do a bunch more like that. --StBacchus : My take is that we continue to go with the industry standard of placing newest films at the top of the lists and then descend reverse-chronologically. Given the biographical nature of the lists, I can see why the industry chose to list items in this manner, since it is in the actor's best interest to have latest material listed first, and more interesting for the readers to see the latest projects the actor is working on. As for deceased actors, theirs remain listed in as such on account of the industry custom. : I have not seen a web filmography listed in regular chronological order (oldest first) so to implement this would be unprecedented (not to mention confusing for site visitors). Considering one of the arguments you had mentioned — that all other lists here on wiki 24 are chronological, so why should these be different — I think that it is appealing to the wrong precedent. There is no unspoken rule floating around that says "dated lists on a wiki should always either be chronological or reverse-chronological, there shalt be no mixing of the two." To change the lists for the sake of some kind of intra-wiki consistency would entail a colossal effort to produce minimal results (actor lists would simply be switched around) that would serve only to break precedent and ignore the customary viewing preferences and industry standard. – Blue Rook 09:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :: I'm not convinced that it's the "industry standard" as you say. I know IMDb does this, but does anyone else, aside from those who copy from IMDb? Wiki 24 isn't a place for actors to present their resumes or advertise projects, so how can we really justify doing this? Saying it's more interesting for the readers to see the latest projects isn't really a legitimate reason, since we don't list the seasons in reverse order on the "24" page, where the same argument could be made. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think this reverse-chronological thing is as ingrained into the human psyche as you seem to suggest. I doubt anyone would be confused by seeing the filmographies in proper order, so long as the years are labeled. --Proudhug 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)